c. 



orres po-ndtTice 



? 



bet 



ween 



Gce-n. \M. \ . JherTna.'n anA 



Major General W S. H 



an- 



cock. 



$a^t Taul, I&7I 




Class £4fc>7 

.1 
Book 



■Ha H25 



•Xv ikJ.9C»*,, fat*/* J*t<ute*y ttjL,tiu.;j t je, 

E N C Y 



Cud C*uJ!jUt*t~£, 



CORRKSPONDK 



BETWEEN 



GENERAL VV. T. SHERMAN, 



U . S . ARMY 






AND 



Major General W. S. Hancock 



U. S. ARMY. 



&c, &c. 




SAINT PAUL. 
1871. 



s 



E4-L7 
.1 

■Hi Hit 



PREFACE. 



Pursuant to a promise announced in a public telegraphic 
dispatch, authorized by me at Sioux City, Juno 3d last, on 
reading the allegations against, me contained in the dispatches 
of the Associated Press, dated Washington, May 22d, 1870, 
accompanying the publication in the public press of the first 
part of tliis correspondence, and in explanation of certain mat- 
ters which were deemed by others to require from me a formal 
notice, as also in defence of claims made by me to military 
command, tin's pamphlet is published. 

WINF'D S. HANCOCK. 
St. Paul, January 20th, 1871. 



Dispatch of l7n .1 Press accompanying tin p 

cation of the first corvespondenct between Gen 1 ! W. T. Sherman 
and Maj. <•'■ n'l W. S. II incoi k : 



•■ Washington, Mai 22, 1870. 

"On the 13th of April last, Major General W. S. Hancock 
addressed the following telegraphic dispatch to General W. T. 
Sin i-m w. dated St. Louis : 



Si Loi is Mo., April 13, 1870. 

To Gj s'l W. T. SHERMAN, 

Washington, D. < '. 

Ii my rank will not entitle me to a Division, and the changes 
in Departments arc such as to make it practicable, I would pre- 
fer this station. I leave at once fur St. Paul. 

W. S. HANCOCK. 

Miij. Gt in ral. 

1 ■ ■ day ■ am teas s< nt in reply : 

Washington, D. C, April 14, 1870. 
To Gen. HANCOCK, 

' '/■-/. 

Viiur dispatch from St. Louis has been received, and I will 
answer you by mail. In the contemplated changes, your post 
w ill not be altered. 

W. T. SHERMAN, 

(t, n. 



Headquarters Army of the United States, 

Washington, D. C, April 14, 1870. 
General W. S. HANCOCK. 

Comd'g Dep't of Dakota. 

St. Paul. Minn. 

General: — I have laid your dispatch of the J 3th from St. 
Louis before the President, who authorizes me to say that your 
wishes and claims for the succession to the command of the 
Military Division of the Pacific, made vacant by Gen. Thomas' 
death, were fairly considered, and also your preferences for the 
Department of the Missouri in case of a change in its com- 
mander, were also known to him; but he has ordered otherwise. 

The President authorizes me to say to you. that it belongs to 
his office to select the Commanding Generals of Divisions and 
Departments, and that the relations you chose to assume to- 
wards him, officially and privately, absolve him from regarding 
your personal preferences. 

The orders announcing these changes will lie made public in 
a very few days, and they will not touch the Department of 
Dakota or Military Division of the Missouri. 

I am, with respect. 

Yours truly, 

W. T. SHERMAN. 

General. 

Headquarters Dep't ok Dakota, 

St. Paul, Minn., April 27, 1870. 

To General W. T. SHERMAN. 

Comd'g Army of th United States, 

Washington, I). C. 

General : — Your letter has been received, detailing the rea- 
sons the President gives why my claims to a more important 
command should not Vie regarded. 

I intended by my dispatch to ask for a Division, if the existing 



Divisions were all continued ; otherwise, for the department of 
Missouri, it' changes made it practicable; nut as a favor, but as 
a claim to a command to which I thought my rank entitled me. 
A.s ilu' Presidenl leads me t<> believe thai because I have not 
his personal sympathies, my preferences for command -ill not 
lie regarded, notwithstanding my rank, I shall nut again open 
the subject; but will add, in conclusion, that I think it an unfor 
tunate precedenl to establish, that military rank, in time of 
peace, especially in the assignment of general officers to com- 
mands of Divisions and Departments, shall not have that con 
sideration hitherto accorded to it. 

I am. very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant. 

\YI.\FD s. HANCOCK, 

Maj. G< n. I '. S. A. 

The above correspondence has been copied from the telegrams 

and letter- on file in the War Department, and it will be per 
reived that the following words recently attributed to General 
Sherman, do not appear in the letter of this gentleman : — •• I am 
requested by the President to inform you that there i- nothing 
in your personal relations to Genera] Grant, or in your official 
relations to hi- administration, that could justify your promotion 

nOW Or lead you to expert it hereafter.'* 

The reference in General Sherman's letter to the "relations" 
which Genera] Hancock "chose to assume towards him (the 
President) officially and privately." and absolving the President 
from regarding General Hancock's "personal preferences," is 
thus explained : At the time the Reconstruction acts were put 
in operation, General Hancock was transferred from the Depart 
men i ut' the Missouri to the District of Louisiana. < ieneral < 'rant. 
as General-in-Chief, modified or revoked one of General Han- 
cock's orders, to which the latter toofc strong personal exception. 
Shortly after, by order of the President, 'ieneral Hancock was 
assigned to the command of the Division of the Atlantic, and 
came to Washington. He went to < reneral < 'rant's Headquarters, 
but instead of calling upon him personally, simply registered his 



name, which was unusual and considered discourteous. General 
Grant having no knowledge or apprehension thai General Han- 
cock was offended with him, meeting him on the street shortly 
afterwards, accosted him in a friendly way: — "Good morning-, 
Hancock." To this General Hancock made no verbal response, 
but merely touched his hat and passed on. Some time subse- 
quent, the two met at a wedding party, when General Hancock 
turned his back on him. General Grant was also informed that 
General Hancock. had boasted of his discourtesy to him on the 
street. 

When General Hancock issued an order for the removal of 
certain persons in New < (rleans, a correspondence took place b< 
tween the two Generals on the subject, when General Hancock 
used language which was considered disrespectful and insubor 
dinate to his superior officer. 

General Hancock is now a Major General in command of i 
Department. When General Thomas died, there Mere left four 
Major Generals — Halleck. who had been on the Pacific coast, and 
had served out a tour of duty; Meade, who was offered the com 
mand as successor to Thomas, but without change of rank, pre- 
ferred remaining in Philadelphia. Thus the choice lay between 
Hancock and Schofield. The matter was submitted to the Presi- 
dent, who simply directed that Schofield should lie sent to the 
Pacific, leaving Hancock just where he was — namely, in com- 
mand of one of the most important military departments in the 
country." 



Subsequent ' between '•■ ■' W. T. Sherman 

I Major General W. S. Hancock, and papers referred to 
//, ir hereto/on published), as follows : 

Headquarters Abmi "l mi: United States, 

Washington, D. <'.. M w 21, 1870. 

m. W. S. HANCOCK, 

( 'ommanding DepH St. Pav '. 

General: — I cut from the New York World, of yesterday, an 
article headed. •■ Presidenl Granl insults General Hancock." 
This article is so bitter in its tone, and si ts so positively, 

quoting whal the editor or author supposes to be a letter from 
me to you. which quotation in every word is untrue, that it 
naturally attracts much attention, and will force General Granl 
to publish, or cause to be published, the < orrespondence. 

1 have looked over this correspondence again, and surely see 
nothing discourteous in my note — giving you a fair, frank answer 
to your own question by telegraph from St. Louis. 1 did not an- 
swer by telegraph for the very reason that it mighl be seen by 
irresponsible agents, who might give it publicity. I am certain 
nobody has given even a clue to this matter from my office, and 
the inference will be universal that it leaked out from your 
Headquarters, and. from the false quotation, I also feel sure the 
compiler of the article never read the actual letters, but ga 
thered up what he supposed to be the facts of the case from 
some one who did see them. 

I understood, long ago, that you took exception to General 
Grant's revocation of certain orders you made in New Orlea 
the power to do which was specifically imposed on him by the 
statute, and that when you reached Washington to assume the 
command of the .Military Division of the Atlantic, you posi 
tively neglected to call on him personally, but simply recorded 
your name a> would any strange officer; and that afterwards, 
when General Grant personally approached you in a familiar 
way. you touched your hat formally and walked away. < >!' all 



10 

this I only know from others, not from General Grant ; but he 
did say you had personally assumed to him an unfriendly atti- 
tude. Your last letter, acknowledging the receipt of mine, does 
not complain of a want of courtesy or personal consideration, 
hut merely of regret that personal considerations should have 
led General Grant to disregard your superior rank, viz.. the same 
commission, but an older one, and named (ien. Schofield to suc- 
ceed General Thomas in t lie command of the Military Division 
of the Pacific. 

I think you ought to write me a letter, disclaiming all knowl- 
edge and connection with this article of the New York World — 
such a letter as may well be published to counteract its damag- 
ing effect on all the parties interested, yourself included. 

I am, truly. 

Your friend. 

W. T. SHERMAN, 

Gera ral. 

St. Pacj., Minn., Jink 7, 1870. 

To Gen. W. T. SHERMAN, 

Washington, D. C 

General: — I returned last night from Sioux City, and this 
morning received your letter of May L'lst, which (ien. Greene 
(my Ass'1 Adj't General,) informs me was opened by him, for 
the reason that the envelope bore evidence of its being an olti 
rial paper. 

As soon as I have learned what lias been published during 
my absence in reference to the subject matter of your letter, 
and have disposed of the public business of importance which 
has accumulated here, a suitable reply will be made. 

I inclose, for your information, a telegraphic dispatch from 
Sioux City, which I authorized to lie published on my arrival 
there from the Upper Missouri. 

I am, Very Respectfully, 

Your Od't Serv't, 
WINF'I) S. HANCOCK, 

M<i'i. (•ui'l. 



Telegraphic dispatch from Sioux City of Jura 3, 1870, re- 
ft i-i'i d to in the above lettt r : 

•■(it'll. Hancock arrived here last evening, mi the steamer .Mi 
hit. nil his return from distributing troops a1 the differenl Indian 
agencies on tin 1 Upper Missouri, between this point and Chey 
t'linc. Upon his arrival here, he was visited by Mr. Collins, 
editor of the Sioux City 77////. v. who called his attention to the 
Associated Press dispatches from Washington, of May 22, charg 
ing him with having shown discourtesy to. the President on 
different occasions, while the latter was General of the army ; 
the said dispatches also stating these allegations a- a reason 
why the President refused to assign General Hancock to a com 
mand commensurate with his rank, and at the same time giving 
io a junior a command of a higher grade, over Gen. Hancock. 
The Genera] asserts these allegations to lie in the main false, 
and says that he intends to lake an early occasion, after having 
seen what has been published in reference to this subject, while 
absenl on the Upper Missouri, to formally reply to the allega 
tions as charged in detail, they seeming to bear the impress of 
the sanction of authority, and this occasion being the firsl op 
portunity presented that warranted a formal reply to such alle 
gations. Gen. Hancock was not aware of the publication of the 
dispatches, or any part of them, correct or incorrect, a- published, 
nor the origin or cause of their publication, until he received 
the newspapers containing them, two days since, at Fori Ran- 
dall, and therefore is not conversant with all that lias gained 
credence during hi- absence." 



12 



Major General W. S. Hancock to General W. T. Sherman. 

. Carondi vet, Mo., Jn.v 9, 18?0. . 

General W. T. SHERMAN. 

Wa*7n'/t</to/i. I). ('. 

Sin: — Having, cm the 7th ultimo acknowledged the receipt 
of your communication of the 21st May, I now reply to it. 

1 should have allowed the differences bejween General Grant 
and myself to rest "where the recent correspondence had left 
them, but for certain incorrect statements injurious to me, con- 
tained in the article accompanying the publication of that cor- 
respondence in the Associated Press report, dated Washington, 
May 22d last, and which were thus disseminated broadcast over 
the country, leading many people to believe that they had the 
sanction of the authority which gave that correspondence to 
the press, from the fact that the article and the correspondence 
were published together, one purporting to be an explana 
tion of the other. And I would have confined myself to a cor- 
re< tion of the statements in the dispatch above referred to, but 
for the receipt of your before mentioned letter on my return to 
St. Paul from Sioux City, in which you state, among other 
things, that in your opinion I "ought to write a letter for publi- 
cation, disclaiming any knowledge of or connection with the 
article cut from the New York World of May 20th," which you 
inclosed, in order "to counteract its damaging effect on all the 
parties interested, yourself (myself) included," and in which let- 
ter you mention what you understood to be the grounds of dif- 
ii rences between General Grant and myself. 

Your letter, therefore, enables me to correct some errors into 
which the public has fallen with reference to the origin of those 
differences. I have not entered into this subject in a formal 
way before, tor the reason that I had not been asked to do mi; 
but as ymi invite my attention to this subject, 1 shall give my 
version of it. with a view of settling the matter upon a basis 
of truth. 

A.S you already know. 1 did not wait until the receipt of your 



!:; 

letter to disavow any knowledge of or connection with the re 
cenl publication in the newspapers, for on the 3d of June, on 

tny arrival at Sioux City, after an absenc i the Upper .Mis 

souri from that point, from the 14th of May, and learning what 
had occurred in my absence, I at once authorized the publics 
tion of a dispatch for the press, a'copy of which I furnished you 
on receiving your letter, on my arrival ai St. Paul, intending 
thereby to disclaim any knowledge of the publication of the 
correspondence, or any pari of it. correct or incorrect, as pub- 
lished, until I read the newspaper containing them two days 
before at Fort Randall, or of the origin or cause of it- publica- 
tion; and I intended by thai dispatch also to disavow any 
knowledge of or connection with any article, including the one 
you inclosed, relative to the correspondence, or to the relations 
existing between General Grant and myself, or its publication. 
None of said articles were written or published by my authority, 
or known of to me until I saw them in the newspapers; and I 
had nut encouraged the publication of anything covered by 
them, nor am I the authority for any injurious, or correct, or in 
correct statements, contained in any of them. Yen are doubt 
less correcl in your belief that the compiler of the article you 
inclose never read the correspondence, but gathered up what he 
supposed t<> lie the tacts of the case from one who did see it. or 
had heard it spoken of. I never have, however, hesitated to 
-how the correspondence to friends, or to relate to others the 
decision of the President, when I was asked for the reason why 
my rank had been disregarded in giving a junior a higher grade 
of command over my head. There was nothing in the subject, 
or in your letter, announcing the decision of the President, nor 
in my letter to you in reply, of a confidential character; and it 
was manifestly due to me, and proper that the reasons for that 
decision -1 Id be known. 

I Bhould have been gratified, therefore, to have had the cor 
respondence published, as an act of justice to myself; and F am 
content with the publication as it finally appeared, 9ince it en 
aide- me to give the denial to certain allegations contained in 
the article accompanying the full publication. 

[took especial care to prevent an unauthorized puldication 
of this correspondence, and as you assume the responsibility oi 



14 

declaring positively that no clue to it came from your office, 
and appear to be as well satisfied that it was not derived from 
any other official source in Washington, I am willing that it may 
be believed that the knowledge of the correspondence, and of 
the decision contained in it, may have been derived from my 
relations of it, as hereinbefore explained; inaccurate versions 
of it, however, I am not responsible for. 

The published correspondence explains clearly what was 
known only to a few persons before, viz: the reasons the Presi- 
dent ha- given why. on the death of Major General Thomas, 
I was not assigned to the command of a Military Division, al- 
though I was the next Major General in rank, and why a junior 
Major Genera] was assigned over my head to command a Divis- 
ion, to a higher grade of command than was given to me (a 
Military Department); and also why I, the only Major General 
commanding a Department, was not even allowed the choice of 
a vacani Department in the Military Division in which I was 
then stationed, the other Department Commanders being but 
Brigadier Generals, as indeed they are in (lie entire service save 
where they are of lesser rank. 

Those reasons were, 1st, that it belonged to his office ( the 
President's) to select the < Commanding Generals of Divisions and 
Departments; ami 2d, that the relations I chose to assume to- 
wards him. officially and privately, absolve him from regarding 
my personal preference.-, as my claims are styled, which had 
been previously communicated to him. 

In acknowledging the receipt of your letter, communicating 
the above decision of the President, I simply objected to the 
sufficiency of the grounds given for if. claiming that what I had 
asked was due to my rank, and regretting that so unfortunate a 
precedent had been established, (one very likely to be imitated 
hereafter) that military rank in time of peace, especially in the 
assignment of general officers to commands of Divisions and 
Departments, should not have the consideration hitherto con 
ceded to it. 

As you properly state, I did not complain of a want of per- 
sonal consideration ; it was too late for that. I had complained 
a year ago of a similar disregard of my rank, and no notice was 
taken of it, nor did it prevent a greater want of consideration 



15 

in this instance. Nor did I complain of a wanl of courtesy; 
principles were in question, and I did nol care to consider forms. 

Your letter i e. in reply to my respectful telegram, would 

probably be considered by many persons a harsh one; bul it 
was no doubt the harsh decision you communicated thai made 
it appear so. The decision was by the highest authority, from 
which ii" appeal could be taken. I therefore submitted to it, 
trusting to time I'm' a more jusl consideration. The charges 
were of a general nature: no specific allegations were men- 
tioned, nor was there anything in the tone of that decision to 
invite inquiry into the origin of the causes which led to thai 
decision; it rather forbade it; and I am sure that no person 
could have been expected to enter upon explanations under 
such circumstances. 

I presume the expression "official and private relations," used 
by the President, refer* to what transpired on the two occa- 
sions which you referred to in your recent letter, in which I was 
accused of having treated the President, (while he was General 
of the Army,) with disrespect. Had I Keen informed, when the 
decision was conveyed to me. what were my offenses, I should 
certainly have noticed them, and if the tacts had not been cor- 
rectly stated, would have contested them ; but I will herein 
cheerfully reply to them, as the subject has been thus opened, 
although I do not recognize that my assignment to a command 
commensurate with my raid; is in any way properly dependent 
on I he favor with which I may lie personally regarded by my 
military superiors. 

A.s above indicated, this was not the first occasion when my 
claims were disregarded where my rank was superior. 

I might, on the first occasion, have expected, from a friendly 
administration, a command of a Division, as nil my seniors were 
assigned to Divisions, but I was designated as a Department 
Commander, [was a Major General, and the senior of all offi- 
cers commanding Departments. Iliad some personal reasons 
for desiring a certain Department in the Division in which I am 
now serving, the nature of which reasons were,from long ac- 
quaintance, well kn '\\n to my military superiors ; and being the 
senior, and all those above me having Divisions, I supposed the 
choice would be yielded to me. a- the Department was to be 



16 

vacant and I was to be assigned to a command. Like reasons 
had been regarded in other cases, at different times. I entered 
my protest then against what I deemed a want of due consid- 
eration, but no notice lias vet been taken of it, although it was 
made a year or more since. The decision was final, and I obeyed 
the order. I was sent to a Department then considered the least 
important of the three in the Division in which 1 was placed. 
The one I desired to command had three times the number of 
troops, the other twice the number, that were in the command 
assigned to me, and both of them were commanded by my 
juniors. The principle then involved was simply one of prefer- 
ence and consideration dne to rank, while on the recent occa- 
sion the principle violated is of a higher order. The customs 
and tradition- of the service were violated on the firsl occasion; 
they are also violated in the recent decision, as well as the 
highest principle upon which rank is given. 

In your recent letter you speak of Hie decision of the Presi- 
dent, a- a disregard of "my superior rank in tin sarrn commis- 
. hni mi older mi,." apparently as if it i> distinguishable in 
principle, whether General Schofield. a Major General, had been 
given a higher grade of command over me. a senior .Major Gen- 
eral, or whether the senior Brigadier General had been given 
that grade, or as if it were no serious matter to be over- 
slaughed by a junior Major General. I may lie in error in at- 
tributing to yon any such opinion, but it' I am not, I beg leave 
to -ay that the principle involved seems to me to lie the same; 
tor a Brigadier General i- equally eligible, under proper circum- 
stances, to command a Division as an officer of higher grade ; but 
the law establishing military rank does not contemplate that 
Brigadier Generals shall he placed over the heads of Major 
Generals, nor that junior Major Generals should be put over the 
heads of their seniors; and it seems clear to me that the prin- 
ciple of rank is equally violated whether the senior Brigadier 
General is placed over my head, or a junior Major General : cer 
tainly one would not be more agreeable than the other. The 
rule that would place a junior Major General in a higher grade 
of command than a senior [Major General, in time of peace, or 
which nave all the Major Generals save one. (and he not a junior,) 
Divisions, and that senior Major General, a Department, with 



17 

Brigadier < fenerals and Colonels, and not allow him a choice of a 
Departmenl in his own Division, is certainly n violation of the 
principle upon which rank is established, as well as the customs 
of military service in all countries governed by law, and would 
equally sanction thai the Lieutenant General who now coin 
mands a Division, mighl be placed in command of a Deparl 
ment, while some one or ;ill of the Major Generals had I>i 
\ isions. 

I have thus stated at length the grounds of my complaint, 
and have, I am sure, established thai I have suffered a degrada- 
tion of rank in the matters of which I complain. 

I am i old. a- before mentioned, that the Presidenl claims for his 
office the right to do what he has done to me. Thai he has the arbi 
trary power, I cannol bul admit, for I have fell it, bul I do not 
believe that the exercise of such power i- conferred by existing 
law-: and if it were allowed bylaw,! maintain thai it should 
never lie exercised excepl lor valid public reasons. If such 
reasons are supposed to exist, I certainly have never been in- 
formed of them : and a- I am loyal to my -o\ eminent ami conn 
try. ami have. I feel quite sure, discharged with fidelity my 
duties as a soldier for nearly a generation of service, and was 
only appointed a Major General shortly before the differences 
between < reneral < franl as the 1 reneral of the Army, and myself, 
originated, I cannot believe thai any such valid public reasons 
exisl why my rank should be so disregarded. 

Then I am informed that the relations I chose to assume to- 
wards the President, officially and privately, absolve him from 
regarding my claims. I have no other knowledge except what 
is contained in your recent letter, and in the article accom 
panying the publication of the correspondence before referred 

to what i- meant by th< ] I i < - i : 1 1 and private relations" 

forming the basis of the recent action in my case. I will, how- 
ever, now consider these in detail, beginning with the two oc- 
currences wherein, a- stated by you, it i- charged that I had 
acted in an exceptional wayto General Gran I before he became 
President, and which, from your having mentioned no other. I 
infer are the only grounds upon which the Presidenl based his 
action. 

I will state, while in New Orleans in command of the Fifth 



18 

Military District, it was proposed by the City Councils, by a vote 
of those bodies, to go into the election of a judicial officer to fill 
a vacancy, which was an elective office by the people, and. un- 
der the Reconstruction Acts (elections being in abeyance,) an 
appointment to be made by the District Commander. A com- 
munication was addressed to the Councils by my Assistant 
Adjutant General, in my absence in Texas, notifying them that 
their contemplated action was illegal, in violation of the orders 
of the District Commander (my predecessor,) and contrary to 
the provisions of the Reconstruction Act-, and warning them to 
desi-t. After I returned, it was voted at a subsequent meeting 
of the Councils, to go into an election for the office in question, 
notwithstanding what had transpired a- above stated. An elec- 
tion was only prevented by the absence "I' a quorum at the time 
of going into joint session for that purpose. I called for the 
minutes of that Council meeting and as6ertained which of the 
members had voted for this action, and removed them from 
office, as I had a right to do under the law-, for a contempt of the 
orders of the District Commander — all implicated having been 
appointed by my predecessor, under the Reconstruction Act-. I 
was called upon by General Grant for an explanation. I justi- 
fied my action upon the claim that I was merely defending the 
prerogatives of my office, and stated that if overruled, I should 
make a respectful application to be relieved from command. 
General Grant sustained me in so far as to state that if the va- 
cancies had been tilled the matter should rest. < oii-idering the 
vacancies practically filled, their successors having been ap- 
pointed,! ><> notified him. Subsequently General Grant reversed 
hi- decision, and directed me to restore the members of the 
Councils whom I had displaced, ami of course to turn out those 
whom I had appointed to succeed them. I immediately exe- 
cuted the order, but feeling that my usefulness had been im- 
paired by loss of power and prestige, I asked to be relieved 
from the command and to lie ordered to St. Louis, hoping thus 
to avoid being again assigned to a command not purely military. 
The proposed action of General Grant was a matter known in 
Xew Orleans nearly a week before I had received any notifica- 
tion of it. through a letter received there from a prominent 
gentleman in Washington, interested in Louisiana matters. I 



Ill 

was asked if it was true, and replied thai it could not be, for 
General Grant had disposed of the matter otherwise ; yei it was 
true, and the early information, as it was conveyed, was made 
the basis of speculation on Exchange in New Orleans, bui of 
course without General Grant's knowledge. 

I was -lad to be removed from thai command; glad of the 
opportunity thus presented ; I mighl have retained it notwith- 
standing the humiliation I had experienced, bui my pride for- 
bade it. It is well known thai I never desired the command; 
I had my opinions upon political matters, bui had never ob 
truded them; I merely wished to be a soldier, not a politician; 
I had been enabled to go through the war. avoiding politics, and 
by constantly remaining in the Held, to retain the esteem, gen 
erally. of all parties in the country. 1 did not wish to sacrifice 
that ••-teem: I therefore did not de-ire to go to New Orleans, 
and was glad to lie relieved, for I knew I could not satisfy the 
unreasonable expectations of many patriotic people, if I con lined 
myself to the latitude allowed me by the law-, and did not ad 
vance beyond them. I executed the laws faithfully while there. 
bui not in the interests of partisans. I fell hurt, that as a sol 
dier defending tin' prerogatives of my office, General Grant, my 
next commander, had not sustained me. bui had humiliated me 
in presence of the people whom I had been sent to govern. I 
did not contesl hi- righl to revoke my action in reference to 
appointments under the reconstruction laws, but I knew thai 
the question was merely one of power, as againsl those who 
wished to have me removed, and who believed it an easy matter 
to accomplish, after I had declared that, if overruled, I would 
ask to he relieved, provided they could induce General Granl to 
revoke my action: and I believed that in this case he had acted 
upon ex partt statements of parti -an-, and from policy, at a sacri 
lice of my pride. I therefore was aggrieved, and felt cold to 
Genera] Grant; and if my manner ha- since shown it. it is at- 
tributable to this, and not that I meant to treat him in a disre 
spectful way. 

I was then ordered toWashington to consult with the Presi 
dent (Johnson;) and. on leaving New Orleans, without being 
relieved, was directed by General Granl to transfer my com- 
mand, an exceptional course in recenl time-, nol applied to 



20 

others. I was subsequently relieved, in a formal manner, by the 
President, from command of the Fifth Military District, and 
assigned to the command of the Military Division of the 
Atlantic. 

When I readied Washington, I first called on the President, 
(Johnson,) at whose instance, as the orders expressed. I had 
been summoned there. Immediately thereafter I called at Gen- 
eral Grant's headquarters to report my arrival in the city. I 
inquired for the Adjutant General, and being shown into his 
office, met several officers of the Staff whom I knew, and with 
whom I exchanged the ordinary civilities; I then inquired if 
they had a Register in which officers arriving could record their 
uames, (such a book being kept at nearly all Headquarters for 
thai purpose:) While I had never seen one at General Grant's 
Headquarters, (for I had usually called on General Grant in per- 
son.) I presumed, however, that they had one for those officers 
who merely wished to register their arrival ami address. Hue 
of the officers replied. "No! have you not seen the General?" 
I replied I had not; and turning to General Rawlins, said. •• Un- 
der existing circumstances it is probably as well; and if you 
will notify the General that I have arrived in the city, and where 
my residence is. (mentioning it.) he will no doubt send for me 
if lie de-ire- to see me." I immediately departed; I was nut 
sent for. 

Some days afterwards, stepping from a street car in front of 
the Treasury Building, in Washington, to go into the First Na- 
tional Bank, I observed General Grant on the pavement in front 
of the point where I left the car, engaged in close conversation 
with Ex-Governor Flanders of Louisiana, who was probably the 
only observing witness to what followed, and to whom I can 
confidently refer for a truthful statement as to what transpired. 
When I reached the pavement, and was about stepping on it. 
General Grant, who was standing probably ten or fifteen feel 
back from the curb, in his usual manner on such occasions, not 
approaching me. touched his hat and said. "Good morning, Gen- 
eral." I lifted my hat, and replied, " Good morning, General," 
and passed diagonally to the left, towards the door of the bajik, 
which I had intended to enter. For the reason before stated, I 
did not feel cordial to him, and so governed my action. I never 



21 

treated him, however, with disrespect on any occasion, nor have 
I ever uttered an expression of hostility to him. 

It was a long time afterwards thai I heard it circulated, and 
then coming from those near to General Grant, thai I had "cul 
him on the street." I always denied this whenever I heard it. 
ami even authorized the publication of that denial, (a year or 
more since.) Until the article in the Associated Press, before 
referred to, I never had heard of the charge thai I had written 
an insubordinate or disrespectful letter to General Granl : It is 
nol true, and the records will very readily show thai fact. Nor 
did I ever before hear the charge thai I had boasted of having 
"cul him." I had related the facts of our interview. hut nol in 
a wayto warrant such a charge. I never heard either, until this 
article appeared, thai I had turned my hack upon General 
Granl al a wedding, or any other social party; and it' it is in- 
tended by thai expression to mean what is generally considered 
by the use of thai term, it is nol t rue. 

I subsequently mel him, two or 1 hree times during the season, 
al social parties, and. on the lasl one or two occasions, happen- 
ing to be near him, made way for him in a deferential manner, 
which lie appeared to recognize. 1 have met him on no other 
occasions since. 

In conclusion, I wish to say, thai my present command is per- 
sonally agreeable to me in every respeel ; thai I regard St. Paul 
as a delightful city, and the country and people of my Deparl 
nient as of the mosl interesting. My objections were nol to the 
country or the people to whom I was sent, bul to the personal 
and official treatment complained of against myself. 

I am. very truly your friend, 

And obedienl sen ant. 

WINFD S. HANCOCK. 

Maj. Gen. C. S. A. 



Major General W. S. Hancock to General W. T. Sherman. 

Caroxdelet. Mo., July 10, 1870. 
General W. T. SHERMAN, 

Washington, I>. C. 

General — I delayed mailing my reply to your letter until I 
received from Ex-Governor Benj. F. Flanders of Louisiana, a" 
communication in reply to one I wrote to him on the 10th of 
June, in reference to his knowledge of an interview I had with 
General Grant, to which he was probably the only witness. 

I received that reply yesterday, and now send yon a copy, to- 
gether with a copy of the letter of mine which called it forth. 

I notice to-day an article in the Associated Press dispatches of 
yesterday, from Washington, which makes it seem pertinent 
that I should request you to cause your letter to me, and mine 
I" you. to he published in full, in order to avoid further error-. 

My letter to you is long, I know: but I could not well make 
it shorter, and at the same time cover all the points I desired to 
refer to. It is to me a matter of regret that it i- so Ion-', as its 
length will deter many from reading it. 

I am very truly yours, 

WINF'D S. HANCOCK. 

Major GenH U. S. A. 



23 

Letter of Major General W. S. Hancock, to Hon. B. F. Flan- 
ders, Ex-Governor of Louisiana, referred to in tin foregoing 
U ttt r. 

St. I'm i, Minn., June 10, INTO. 

Hon. B. !•'. FLANDERS, 

St. w Orh ans, La. 

Sib — You will probably recoiled an occasion when you were 
standing on the pavement in front of Jay ('nuke'- Bank, in 
Washington, I>. C, in the sprini: of lstis. i>n gaged in close con 

versation with ( reneral Grant, thai I appr :hed from the street, 

having lefl a street car, and on arriving at the curb, exchanged 
certain social formalities with General Grant, who was standing 
some distance had; from the curb, and listening to you. 

[recalled this interview to your recollection on a previous 
occasion, and after I had heard thai General Grant's friends 
had circulated a reporl that, on the occasion referred to, I had 
•• cut " the < reneral or treated him with disrespect or indignity. 

I inclose a -dip from the Associated Press report, dated Wash- 
ington May 22d last, in which the details of this meeting are 
pretended to be reported by -nine authority. Will you be 
pleased as a matter of justice to all parties concerned, to relate 
what transpired on that occasion, and to state what was the im 
pression conveyed to your mind at that time by that interview. 
in reference to the relative bearing of General Grant and my 
self; also, please state more particularly, whether I treated 
General Grant with disrespect or with less courtesy than he ex- 
tended tn me; whether I lifted my hat to General Grant, in re 
sponse to his salute by his touching his hat, and whether I did 
not return his salutation of "Good morning, General," as I 
passed by to enter the door of the First National Bank, a shorl 
distance up the street from where you were standing; also. 
whether General Grant approached me or remained standing 

upon that occasion, and whether he extended his hand. 
I request from you an early reply. 

I am, very respectfully, 

Your ( )li"t Serv't, 

WINFD S. HANCOCK. 



24 



Letter of Hon. B. F. Flanders to Major General W. S. Han- 
cock, in reply to tfo preceding letter, and referred to in Major 
Gt in ral Ham. i' k's last h ft' r to Gt ?u mi Sherman. 



New Orleans, July 1, 1870. 

Mat. Gen'l WINF'D S. HANCOCK, 
U. S. A. 

General — I have been absenl from the city, and your letter 
of June Hi has onlyjusl reached me, which is my apology forthe 
delay of this reply. 

Your letter reminds me of an occasion in the spring of L868, 
when General Grant and myself were coiyversing on the pave- 
ment in front of -lay Cooke and Co.'s Bank, in Washington, and 
when yon passed, and salutations were exchanged between 
< reneral < rrant and yourself. 

You inclose to me a report of the Associated Press, dated 
Washington,' May 22d, 1870, in which you say, -the details of 
this meeting are pretended to be reported by some authority," 
and you ask me. " as a matter of justice to all parties concerned," 
to relate what transpired on that occasion, and to state what was 
the impression conveyed to my mind at the time by that inter- 
view, in reference to the relative bearing of General Granl and 
yourself. 

Yon further ask me, " to state particular! j whether you treated 
General Grant with disrespect or with less courtesy than he ex- 
tended to you ; whether you lifted your hat to General Grant in 
response to his salute by touching Ins hat, and whether you did 

not return hi< salutation of 'G 1 morning, General,' as you 

passed by to enter the door of the First National Bank, a Utile 
higher up the street from where we were standing; also whether 
Genera] Grant approached you on that occasion or remained 
standing, anil whether he extended his hand 01" not* ' 

My recollection of the occasion referred to is quite fresh and 
i- a- follows: 

You passed (as I supposed from the street car which had stopped 
opposite the Bank,) directly to the Haul; about thirty feci from 



General Granl and myself, who stood conversing on the side 
« alk thai distance below. 

Salutations, free, natural, and courteous, were exchanged on 
both sides, by touching or lifting the hat. 1 saw nothing in 
( leneral < Irant's demeanor towards you, or yours to him, to indi 
cate constraint or coldness. Had there been any such manifes 
tation I should have noted it. We were talking of Louisiana 
affairs al the time, and the impression lefl on my mind was 
that, under the circumstances, the greeting on both >iilc~ was ra 
ther pleasant than otherwise. There was no nearer approach 
than I have said, and there was no extending of hands. The 
distance alone would have precluded that. We continued our 
conversation ; you passed into the bank, and thus the interview 
ended. 

Wry Respectfully, 

Your <>b"i Serv't, 

BENJ. !•'. FLANDERS. 



General W. T. Shepmas to Major General W. S. Hancock: 

Headquarters Army of the United States, 

Washington, I>. C, July 18, 1-7". 

BAL W. S. HANCOCK. 

Cum/';/ Ihji't of Dakota. 

Gi jeral — 1 have new (lie honor to acknowledge the receipl 
of your several letters of June 7. July 9, and July 10, with the 
copy of that of Benj. F. Flanders, all of which were promp 
laid before the President, and by him carefully read. 

[ have this moment returned from him, and before leaving, 
asked if I should write anything specific from him; and his an 
swer was, " No !" All I can therefore say is that they (the Jet 
ters,) have been submitted to him. and will remain with me 
marked private. Without you insist on their publication, I will 
keep them a- now; bul if yen reiterate a de-ire to have all the 
respondenee published, I will submit your request again to 
him. 



26 

This whole matter being one between you two, I refrain from 
offering any advice, further than the usual tender of my services 
to establish a better understanding between yon. 

With great respect, 

Your ( >h"t Serv't, 

W. T. SHERMAN, 

G( II, 11(1. 

Major General W. S. Hancock to General W. T. Sherman: 

St. Pali, Minx., Aitccst 12, 1870. 

To General W. T. SHERMAN, 

ComTg Arm;/ of th United States, 

Washington, I >. ( '. 

General — I have the honor to acknowledge tlie receipl of 
your communication of July 18th. I retjuesl that you will sub- 
stitute t he 7th ultimo for the 7th inst., and 21s1 of .May for 21sl 
ultimo, in the firsl sentence of my communication to you of the 
!>th of July, to correct error- of date-. 

When I reached Sioux ( 'it v. on June 3d, having learned that it 
wa- supposed by many people that I had incited the publication 
of the article or article- which led to our first correspondence 
being published, I seized the first occasion to authorize the pub- 
lung of a dispatch, in which I denied all knowledge of the 
matter, and pledged myself thai I would notice in detail the 
charges against me contained in the Associated Press report of 
May 22d, accompanying the publication of the aforesaid corres 
pondence between you and myself. 

And on the 7th of June, on arriving at St. Paul from Sioux 
City, I received your letter of May 21st, wherein you informed 
me that, owing to certain injurious statements in the newspaper 
article, a copy of which you inclosed, the President would be 
forced to publish the correspondence to which it referred; and 
it was accordingly published on the following day. 

You appeared to think also, that 1 ought to write you a letter 
for publication, in order as you stated, to counteract the dam- 
aging effects to myself as well as others, resulting from the 



newspaper article referred to. I had already acted in thai spirit 
in the brief dispatch from Sioux < !ity, published before receiving 
your letter. Anil in compliance with the invitation contained 
in your letter of the '2 1st of May, as well as in performance of 
ilic promise contained in my dispatch from Sioux <'ity. I wrote 
in yon my letter of the 'Mli of July. I of course, intended thai 
that letter should be published, as the allegations against me 
covered by it had been widely circulated through the public 
press, and were injurious, to me as well as offensive to the public 
and the President. 

Ii was a matter of justice to all, and especially to mc thai my 
reply should be as widely circulated as the allegations againsl 
me, in order to remove the impression made on the public 
mind that I had frequently treated the Presidenl with disres 
peel : and assuredly so if the Presidenl was noi satisfied with 
the explanations I had given. 

I therefore il<> noi consider that my letter to you is properly 
disposed of by marking it private, and tiling it away a< you 
mention. 

( )n the 1<m 1 1 of July, observing again in the Associated Press 
reports from Washington, a notice of the subject noi altogether 
correct, i addressed another letter to you, requesting the publi- 
cation of tli<' full correspondence, in order to avoid any further 
incorreel statements concerning the matter. 

I have no fondness for appearing in print, especially in so 
lengthy a way; yel [do noi see thai full justice can be done to 
the Presidenl or to myself without tin'- publication. 

1 tear, however, thai the Presidenl is not satisfied with my ex 
planations, for although I believe the law contemplates thai the 
senior officer presenl on duty, shall, unless for some valid public 
reason, to be determined by the President, command the whole 
in any military jurisdiction, and give such orders as may be 
needful for the service. I have noi been invested with the com 
111:1ml of tin- .Military Division in which I am placed, ami in 
which 1 am the senior, otfing to the departure of the Lieutenant 
General for Europe, on a mission from the Government. 

This point, although arisen since the date of my lasl letter to 
you. is sufficiently covered in its merits by the previous discus 
sion : hence ii is uni ssan for me to refer to it more in detail, 



28 

except In remark that the recent placing of this Division, in 
General Sheridan's absence abroad, under the orders of the 
General-in-Chief, who already had a higher control of it, does 
not duly regard my rank. 

I have ever desired to be well regarded by General Grant, for 
I have not forgotten that I served with him in the field; and 
I appreciate your friendly offer to assist in effecting a better 
understanding between us. and am grateful for your kindness: 
But justice is the foundation of all" friendships. 

If the President is not satisfied with my explanations, made 
in a very frank and exhaustive manner, and I fear that he is 
not, for you inform me that he lias no reply to make to them, 
ami asks no further explanations, I do not see how this' diseus- 
sion ran lie advanced in a happier end by prolonging it. 

I am, Very Respectfully, 

Your < >Vl Serv't, 

WINFD S. HANCOCK, 

Major <>< ii> ral TJ. S. A. 

General W. T. Sherman to Jf>ij<:>r General W. S. Hancock: 

Headquarters Army "i the United Si mis. 

Lancaster, Ohio, August 23, 1870. 

General W. S. HANCOCK, 

Commanding Dep't of Dakota, 

St. Paul. 

General — Yours of August 12th was forwarded to me here. 

and I will send it to General Grant, with an indorsement asking 
him to telegraph yon direct, to publish your former letter to me 
it' lie approves. If you do not hear from him direct, it will lie 
for you to act as you think best. I cannol approve or advise 
any publication at all. Your disclaimer, published at Sioux 
City, was as complete as that of your letter, though not so cir- 
cumstantial. 

As to the command of the Military Division, it has been again 
and again decided that the command of a Department or Mili 



29 

tary Division cannol be assumed as a matter of rank, I ml is one 
of assignraenl by t he President. 

General Sheridan's absence is temporary; maj be short or 
ong at his pleasure; and I understand that the President offered 
him, in person, to construe him as still on duty, to the extent 
i hat his pay is not to be affected. 

< »n many former occasions this same course was pursued, viz: 
When I was sent to Mexico, Department Commanders reported 
direct to Army Headquarters; the same when General Thomas' 
death left the command vacant for a time. 

I will beat Chicago on Saturday, and at Omaha September 
2, and at St. Louis about October 1st : I mt prefer not to be drawn 
into this controversy with General Grant. As it is personal, 1 
prefer that he and you should settle it, or let it drop. 

Surely I have no desire to do you an act of injustice or un- 
kindness. 

Truly yours, 

\Y. T. SHERMAN, 

General. 

Major Horace Porter, Secretary to tlu President, to Ma- 
jor General W. S. Hancock. 

Long Branch, N. J., September 7. 1870. 
M vi. Gen'l VV. S. HANCOCK. 

('. S. Army. 

General The President directs me to say that General Sher 

m has forwarded to him your letter of the 12th ult., addressed 
to the General of the Army, requesting him to publish a pre 
vious letter of yours, dated 9th of July last, and that he has 

informed the General that he has i bjection whatever to his 

giving your letter to the press. 

lie will be glad, at any time, I" accord yon every facility for 
correcting or explaining statements which attribute to you mo 
tives which yon may not have possessed. 

He cannot feel otherwise than gratified, to learn from your 
letters to General Sherman that you deny having treated him 
with intentional disrespect, and de-ire- to assure you that, in Ins 



30 

official action towards you, he lias nol been influenced in the 

least from any motives of a personal nature. 

In regard to your not having been assigned to the command 
of the Military Division, during the absence of Lieutenant (ien- 
eral Sheridan, to which you allude in your letter, he directs me 
to say thai the only motive was a desire to prevent a reduction 
in General Sheridan's pay while that officer is traveling in 
Europe, through its active armies, at his own expense, in order 
to add to his military experience, and to obtain such knowledge 
as may tend to increase the efficiency of our own service. Had 
General Sheridan been granted an ordinary leave of absence, 
and another officer assigned, for the time, to his command, his 
pay would have suffered the usual reduction, while the pay of 
the officer so assigned could not have been increased. 

Very Respectfully, 

Your Ob't Serv't. 

HORACE PORTER, 

Sec'y. 

Major Gnu rut YV. S. Hancock in General W. T. Sherman: 

St. Paul, Minn., October •"., ]s7n. 

Gen. W. T. SHERMAN, 

Commanding Army of tht United States, 
Washington, J>. C. 

General — Your- of the 23d of August reached me on the 
:: l st of the same month, and its receipt would have been 
acknowledged sooner but for my departure soon afterwards for 
Pembina, whence I have just returned. 

I do not desire, as I indicated in my last letter, any more than 
yourself to prolong this discussion, and would merely acknowl 
edge the receipt of your last letter, but for some statements 
contained in it, which I think call for and justify a reply. I 
will therefore confine myself to them. 

I had regarded and conducted tlii- discussion as an official 
matter, and do not consider it, as you appear to do, a purely per- 
sonal controversy between General Grant and myself. 



81 

And I cannol understand why, under the circumstances, you 
should no!, a- you state, approve or advise any publication of 
our correspondence. 

V.r do I think your remark is correcl thai my disclaimer, pub 
lished al Sioux City, was as complete as my letter of July 9th. 
My dispatch from Sioux City was a mere general denial of cer 
tain points, not conclusive on a critical examination, and did not 
cover the promise which I made in t hat dispatch to disabuse I lie 
public mind a- to the charges against mo in the article accom 
panying tin- publication of the prior correspondence. 

General Sheridan's absence in Europe may be temporary or 
prolonged, lmt the occasion for it was such that it was presumed, 
when he went away, that it mighi not lie of short duration. 

Although I have not had a desire to command General Sheri- 
dan's Division, during hi- temporary absence, yet it -coin- to 
me. that a due regard for the intention of the law. and to my 
position, furnished sufficient reasons why. in such absence, if his 
Division i- necessary to he maintained, with all it- appropriate 
staff officers, exercising authority at Division Headquarters, I, 
the senior officer in that command, and otherwise eligible by my 
rank to command a Division, should exercise what authority 
mii: ht lie necessary, from time to time, unless an officer superior 
to me was placed in command; and in my case it appears thai 
there i- no senior to me in the Army, of appropriate rank, who 
ha- not already the command of a Division; and a- I have lie- 
fore -tated a- a principal ground of my complaint, a junior to 
me ha- such a command. Placing the General of the Army in 
command of a Division, when he had the duties of hi- own of 
lice far removed from and outside of ii- limit-, can lie lmt 
nominal, practically, and ha- had the appearance 10 the Army, 
and to the public, thai such assignment was intended t., present 
my having a command of a Division, especially a- no explana- 
tion ot' this extraordinary course had been announced, and a- it 
i- well known that the General of the Army could not. so lon«* 
a- he exercises the function- of hi- own office, be required to 
take such a command, inferior to hi- rank. 

I do not assert that a Division might not he broken up. and 
Department Commanders directed to report to Armj Head 
quarters; lmt I do contend that if a Division he maintained, 



32 

neglecting to assign I lie senior officer in it, to it-- command, is an 
exceptional case, and is injurious to that officer; and that when 
Department Commanders are ordered to report direct to Wash- 
ington, the placing the General-in-Chief in nominal command 
of it, does not alter the merits of the case. 

Had it been desired to preserve General Sheridan's full emol- 
uments, alone, it could readily have been done, practically, by 
directing the Department Commanders to report direct or not, 
and authorizing the next senior officer, ( myself.) while retaining 
command of his Department, to give such orders as might be 
necessary, with Division authority, if circumstances arose re- 
quiring such action, which would rarely occur, if at all. That 
would not have been an objectionable expedient, if the motive 
for it were publicly known, and would have enabled General 
Sheridan to he gratified in the matter of emoluments, and would 
have preserved my pride as well. 

I think you are in error in stating that when you went to Mex- 
ico your Department Commanders reported direct to Washing- 
ton, (I was, I believe, one of them,) and I think your Division 
was maintained, and that your Assistant Adjutant General prac- 
tically commanded it; hut. whether I am mistaken in this or not, 
I am satisfied, and I believe the army so consider it. that a 
command so exercised is not in accordance with the intention of 
our laws oi- with the customs of the service, nor consistent with 
the object for which rank is given, no more than that an officer 
while absent in Europe should maintain a command here. 

Such practices are autocratic, and not in harmony with our 
system, whatever recent precedents there may have been in this 
direction. 

If, as you slate, Department Commanders in the Pacific Divis- 
ion were, on General Thomas' death, ordered to report direct, 
I do not know that Division authority was extinguished in the 
meanwhile, nor that the General-in-Chief was placed nominally 
in command of it ; yet as General < >rd, the senior, had no claim 
to command a Division permanently, by his rank, I cannot co 
incide with you that it is in any event a parallel case to mine. 

Again, while I have not denied that the Presidenl has, by 
virtue of hi- office as Commander-in-Chief,. the right to assign 
the Commanders of Divisions and Departmenl-. I know of no 



33 

warrant in the law for«the proposition you announce, thai the 
command of a Department or Division cannot be assumed as a 
matter of rank, but is one of assignment only. 

I'lie laws governing rank in the Army, are, as to this matter, 
( lie same now a^ before the late civil war: and then ii was nev- 
er doubted but that the senior in rank, in the Line of the Army 
on duty within any command, had the right by virtue of his 
superior rank, and ii was his duty, to assume the command, un 
less the President should otherwise specially direct, according to 
the nature of the case. This rule was absolute, and universally 
applicable throughout the Army, and i~ in accordance with the 
theory upon which rank i- given; and the customs of the Army 
were always in accordance with it. The rights of rank, as to 
command, arc similar for every grade and every command. 

Different views of the law and practices, may have arisen 
within the last few year?, in regard to the rights of rank as to 
the command of Military Divisions and Departments, but there 
can be no good reason for them, and whatever confusion there 
may have been on the subjeel is probably attributable to the 
precedents established in the .Military Districts under the Re- 
construction Acts, lint which were not applicable outside of 
t hem nor within their boundaries after they have ceased to exist, 
and perhaps in some degree to the precedent during the war. of 
a law long since repealed, giving the President the extraordinary 
power to place a junior in command over his seniors. 

In conclusion, I ask your indulgence for troubling yon with 
tlii— unexpected continuation of the correspondence. 

As the claims I have made have not been recognized, I re 
quest that our entire correspondence (unpublished) may be 
published, thai the nature of them may be generally under 
!. and not alone my letter of the Oth of Julv last. 



I am. very respectfully, 
Your ( )li"t Serv't, 

W. s. HANCOCK. 

Maj. Gt m ral U. s. . 1. 



34 



Major General W. S. Hancock to Major Horace Porter, 
Secretary to the President: 

St. Louis, Mo., < >■ tobee 10, 1870. 

Major HORACE PORTER, 

S( '•'// to ///< J'ri sidt nt. 

Sir — Your letter of September 7th, written by direction of 
the President, was received by me only the day previous to my 
departure for Pembina, from which post I have Imt recently re- 
turned. 

I am gratified that the President has authorized the publica- 
tion of my letter of 1 he 9th of July last, but if was and is my 
desire that the full correspondence be published, in order that 
the subject may be clearly understood". 

There are some points in your letter to which I would reply, 
but having covered the same in a letter written to General 
Sherman, in reply to his last letter to me, and which will, with- 
out doubt, be brought to the attention of the President, it 
appears to l>e unnecessary to recapitulate what I therein stated. 

I am, very respectfully. 

Your Ob'l Serv't. 

WINFTJ S. HANCOCK. 
Major G< n< ral JJ. S. .1 . 

General W. T. Sherman to Major Genera? W. S. Hancock: 

Headquarters Army of tjii: United States, 

Washington, I>. C, October 1">, 1870. 

General W. s. HANCOCK. 

CornS 1 g D&pH St. Paul, Minn. 

General — You are aware that I have been absent for some 
week-. I am just in receipt of a letter from General Porter, a 
copy of which I inclose. This letter I had expected would have 
been sent to yon direct, as I requested of the President ; but 



35 

though late, you are mm fully authorized to publish your letter 
to me, <>i' July 9th, IS70, with such explanation as will make ii> 
late publication plain in your friends. 

yours i nil v. 

W. T. SHERMAN, 

Gt lit rul . 

P. S. 1 had jus) written the above, when your letter of Oc- 
tober 3d was received. Inasmuch as you are to be in Washing 
ton on tin' 17th in>t.. I will direct this letter and inclosure to he 
retained and handed you in person, and I construe the Presi- 
dent's consent to embrace the publication of any letters you 
may have received or written on tlii< subject. 

W. T. SHERMAN, 

General. 

Major Horace Pouter, Secretary 'o tin President, to General 
\\. T. Sherman. 

I."V. Braxch, N. ■!.. Septemisjek li. I>7< 

General W. T. SHERMAN, 

Com'dff Army of thi f ■ States. 

General — The President directs me i<> acknowledge the re- 
ceipt i>f Gen. Hancock's letter to you of the L2th ult., requesting 
you to publish a previous letter, dated 9th July last. 

The President has no objection to your giving the letter to the 
press, as General Hancock desires. 

Very respect fully. 

Your Ob't Serv't, 

HORACE PORTER. 



BJa'12 



